Read this alongside the master Professional Indemnity Claims Handbook. This addendum picks up the items that are specific to SRA-regulated solicitors’ practices. Where there is conflict, the SRA Minimum Terms and Conditions (MTC), the SRA Standards and Regulations, and any specific policy wording prevail.
1. The SRA Minimum Terms and Conditions in plain English
Solicitors’ practices in England and Wales are required to maintain qualifying PI insurance compliant with the SRA Minimum Terms and Conditions of Professional Indemnity Insurance (the MTC). The MTC are not optional, and they alter the contractual landscape compared to a “vanilla” PI policy.
For the purposes of this handbook, the practical features you need to know are:
Minimum limit of indemnity: £2 million per claim for sole practitioners and partnerships; £3 million per claim for incorporated practices (LLPs and limited companies). Most firms purchase materially higher limits.
Costs-inclusive vs costs-exclusive: Defence costs sit outside the limit on the primary layer (the MTC mandates this for primary cover — check your schedule for any excess layer treatment).
Innocent partners: The MTC limits the circumstances in which an insurer can decline cover for the dishonesty of one partner — the “innocent partner” protection. The wording matters.
No avoidance for material non-disclosure: The MTC limits insurer remedies for non-disclosure and misrepresentation in ways that differ from ordinary insurance law. Read your wording.
Run-off: A successor practice or, in default, a six-year run-off period is mandatory. Run-off is expensive and not optional.
Notification clause: “As soon as practicable” — this is the language to apply. There is no fixed days-number that protects you from a finding of late notification if the gap is unreasonable.
The MTC are reissued periodically. The current operative version should be on the SRA’s website at sra.org.uk; check before relying on any specific point.
2. Notification cascade — SRA-specific
In addition to the cascade in the master handbook, a solicitors’ firm has SRA notification obligations under the SRA Code of Conduct and the SRA Standards and Regulations. Key points:
Material breaches: The Code requires reporting to the SRA promptly of any serious breach of regulatory arrangements. Where a circumstance involves a material breach (whether by an individual or by the firm), that triggers a separate notification route.
Suspicion of dishonesty: Suspicion of dishonesty by a manager or employee is a reportable matter and almost always coincides with a PI notification.
Insolvency-adjacent: Firms whose own viability is in question must notify the SRA — this can interact with PI notifications.
Practice changes: Changes of practice structure, mergers, closures all interact with the firm’s PI position and with the SRA’s expectations.
These are SRA notifications. They are additional to insurer notifications. The two should be done in parallel; the existence of one does not satisfy the other. Take advice on the exact wording — the SRA reads notifications carefully and will sometimes follow up with information requests or supervisory action.
3. The typical claim patterns we see in solicitors’ PI
These are the patterns. None of this is specific to any firm; it is what underwriting and claims data shows year on year across the market.
3.1 Conveyancing
Conveyancing — residential in particular — produces the largest volume of solicitors’ PI claims and a disproportionate share of the cost. Common patterns:
Title defects missed. A right of way, restrictive covenant, easement, charge or planning condition that should have been raised with the buyer.
Mortgage lender complaints. The lender, often years after completion, alleges that the firm failed to disclose information material to the lending decision. CML / UK Finance handbook compliance is the touchstone.
Missed deadlines. Failure to register, failure to stamp, failure to lodge.
Identity fraud. Funds released to a fraudster impersonating the seller. The “friday afternoon fraud” pattern remains prevalent.
Source of funds / AML. Failures around source of funds checks can become both an SRA matter and an insurer matter.
Conveyancing claims also have a long tail: the limitation clock can run for many years from completion, and the typical claim arrives 3–7 years after the work.
3.2 Wills, probate and private client
Failed gifts. A will drafted in a way that does not achieve the testator’s intention; the disappointed beneficiary brings a White v Jones style claim.
Limitation issues with trustees. Long-running trust matters where allegations crystallise on a change of trustee.
Inheritance tax planning. A scheme that does not work, or that works but with consequences the client did not expect.
Probate delay. A long delay between death and grant, during which assets fall in value or a beneficiary dies.
3.3 Litigation
Limitation missed. The classic — the issue not at court before time runs out.
Costs orders. A costs consequence the client was not warned about.
Disclosure failure. A document not disclosed; sanctions; case lost.
Funding miscommunication. A failure to advise on funding options, CFAs, ATE.
3.4 Corporate, commercial and finance
Warranty and indemnity drafting. A clause that does not protect the client where it was meant to; a clause that overcommits the client where it was not meant to.
Stamp duty land tax errors. A scheme that fails or a return that misstates.
Failed completion mechanics. A condition precedent not met; a release not obtained.
Personal data and confidentiality breaches in deal rooms.
3.5 Employment
Settlement agreement drafting. A term that does not survive a future challenge.
Limitation in tribunal matters.
3.6 Family
Financial remedy outcomes allegedly compromised by drafting.
Costs warnings not given.
4. Notification to the SRA — the practical mechanics
If a matter is notifiable to the SRA, the standard route is the SRA Report Form (currently via “myproactive” or the SRA’s online reporting portal — check the SRA website for the current channel). Practical points:
The form requires factual narrative; write it as you would write to the insurer (Chapter 3 of the master handbook).
Engage a regulatory specialist if the matter is at all material; you cannot easily walk back a notification.
Keep a contemporaneous note of when, how and by whom the SRA report was made.
The SRA may or may not engage further; absence of engagement does not mean the matter is closed at their end.
5. Worked examples
5.1 Worked example: missed restrictive covenant
A residential conveyancing matter completed in 2022. In 2026 the buyer wishes to extend; the local search and title review by the firm in 2022 did not identify a restrictive covenant requiring consent from a development company that no longer exists. The buyer demands rectification or damages.
Apex client response (annotated):
Day 1: Fee-earner spots the issue on receipt of buyer’s letter. Escalates same day to risk partner.
Day 1: Risk partner phones Apex. Litigation hold issued. File secured.
Day 1: Holding response to buyer — neutral, courteous, no admission, “we are looking into this.”
Day 2: Written notification to insurer via Apex with the engagement letter, the title bundle as delivered, and the buyer’s letter. No internal blame analysis attached.
Day 3: Insurer acknowledges; panel solicitor instructed.
Outcome (illustrative): matter resolved within indemnity, modest within-policy contribution, lessons-learned review identifies a process change in covenant abstracting; risk register updated; covered at renewal with a small premium adjustment and constructive narrative.
The point: the early steps were boring and followed the playbook. They are what made the rest manageable.
5.2 Worked example: lender complaint, four years post-completion
A 2021 residential matter. In 2025 the lender (now in run-off itself) demands disclosure of the file and threatens a Bristol & West v Mothew style claim alleging failure to report a price reduction.
Apex client response (annotated):
Day 1: Letter received; lender’s solicitor’s tone is litigation-ready. Risk partner consulted same day. Litigation hold issued. Apex notified.
Day 1: No response to lender other than acknowledgement of receipt.
Day 2: Written notification to insurer via Apex, attaching the lender letter and the file index.
Day 3: Panel solicitor instructed; takes over correspondence with the lender’s solicitor.
Subsequent: matter turns on contemporaneous evidence of communications with lender at the time of completion. Because the file was preserved and the email archive recovered intact, the defence is materially stronger than it would have been if the file had been “tidied” after completion.
5.3 Worked example: suspected friday afternoon fraud
A purchase completion. Just before deposit transfer, the buyer’s email “instructions” updating the deposit destination bank details are received. The fee-earner pauses. Two factual red flags. The fee-earner picks up the phone to a known number for the buyer and confirms — fraud attempt confirmed.
This is not (yet) a circumstance because no loss has occurred. But it is a near-miss. The firm:
Records the near-miss in its risk register.
Briefs the team.
Updates its source-of-funds and instructions-change protocol.
Flags to Apex at renewal as part of risk narrative.
Near-miss discipline is one of the things that distinguishes a well-run firm at renewal.
6. Regulator-specific notification scenarios
Beyond the general regime, certain solicitor scenarios have their own regulator dimension:
Suspected dishonesty by a fee-earner — usually triggers SRA notification within days, in parallel with insurer notification. Take advice; the SRA’s threshold for “material” is broad.
Significant breaches of accounts rules — separate Accounts Rules notification route. Interact with insurer notification where client money is implicated.
Insolvency-adjacent events — SRA early engagement strongly preferred. Insurer interest acute around possible run-off.
Whistleblowing internally — internal investigations may produce evidence relevant to both insurer and regulator. Manage carefully; legal advice essential.
7. Apex’s role in solicitor PI claims
Within the constraints described in the master handbook (Chapter 7):
We are familiar with the SRA MTC and the typical insurer wordings.
We can introduce specialist regulatory counsel where the SRA dimension is material.
We can talk to your insurer about aggregation where multiple matters are arising from a single underlying cause (e.g. a single fee-earner’s portfolio of files).
We will engage on run-off if the firm is winding down or selling.
We will not, of course, give regulatory advice.
8. Common solicitor-specific pitfalls
Telling the lender first. Some firms reflexively respond to a lender letter before notifying insurers, treating it as routine correspondence. Don’t.
Letting the COLP run the matter alone. The COLP is essential but should not be both regulator-facing and insurer-facing without support.
Forgetting the file in the case management system. Modern case management platforms retain edit history. Ensure no further edits are made post-awareness.
Internal “AB” reviews after the fact. A blame-allocation review by email is disclosable, awkward, and rarely accurate.
Run-off underestimated. A firm closing or merging will have run-off needs that must be priced and arranged. Do not leave this to the last month.
9. Run-off and successor practice considerations
Where a solicitor firm ceases to exist as a separate practice — through closure, merger, retirement of sole practitioner, or sale — the MTC requires run-off cover to remain in place. The run-off period is six years (matching the typical limitation period for breach of contract). Practical points:
Run-off premiums are typically materially higher than annual premiums.
A “successor practice” inherits the prior firm’s liabilities and the prior firm’s claims history. This affects both firms’ renewals.
Conduct of work in the months before closure is closely scrutinised at renewal — both by the closing firm’s insurer and by any successor.
Plan run-off at least six months ahead of closure where possible.
10. Apex client checklist for solicitors
Print and keep where partners can find it.
[ ] We have a named COLP and deputy.
[ ] We have a written internal circumstance escalation procedure with a 48-hour internal escalation target.
[ ] We have a current Apex client services phone number on the partners’ contact list.
[ ] We have the current policy schedule accessible (not in a personal mailbox).
[ ] We know where prior policy schedules are kept for at least 7 years.
[ ] We have a litigation hold template ready to issue.
[ ] We have an evidence inventory map (case management, email, finance, time, mobile, paper).
[ ] We have a current SRA report form route documented.
[ ] We have specialist regulatory counsel on speed dial (or know how to reach one through Apex).
[ ] We review the firm’s claims history annually with Apex, not just at renewal.
Apex Insurance Brokers Ltd is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. FCA Firm Reference Number 724952. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. Registered office: Bristol, United Kingdom. This document is provided to Apex clients as a general guide. It is not legal advice and is not a substitute for the terms of your insurance policy. Always read your policy schedule and wording. If you have a circumstance or claim, contact Apex without delay.
Our service promise. We acknowledge every quote request the same working day. For straightforward risks, indicative terms typically follow within five working days. Complex risks — higher-risk buildings, cladding, mid-term proposals requiring fresh underwriting — may take longer; we’ll send you a progress note by the end of the fifth working day in those cases.